Digital rights, digital wrongs + Facebook | The Guardianhttps://www.theguardian.com/technology/series/digitalwrongs+facebook
Indexen-gbGuardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. 2017Fri, 18 Aug 2017 06:14:18 GMT2017-08-18T06:14:18Zen-gbGuardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. 2017The Guardianhttps://assets.guim.co.uk/images/guardian-logo-rss.c45beb1bafa34b347ac333af2e6fe23f.pnghttps://www.theguardian.com
Privacy, public health and the moral hazard of surveillance | Cory Doctorowhttps://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/may/21/privacy-public-health-surveillance
If online oversharing is a public health problem, then the state's decision to harness it for its own purposes means that huge, powerful forces within government will come to depend on it<p>Whenever government surveillance is debated, someone inevitably pooh-poohs the subject as cause for alarm: after all, people overshare so much sensitive personal information with services like Facebook that there's hardly anything to be gleaned from state surveillance that isn't already there for the taking on "social media."</p><p>I don't question the assertion that people overshare on social networks – that is, people share information in ways that they later come to regret. The consequences of oversharing range widely, and we hear of any or all of losing a job; being outed to your family or co-workers for your sexual orientation; having embarrassing youthful episodes of intoxication and/or ill-considered opinion forever tied to your name in the eyes of potential lovers, friends, and employers; and alienating friends and family who don't approve of some aspect of your life, associations, or hobbies.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/may/21/privacy-public-health-surveillance">Continue reading...</a>InternetPrivacyFacebookWorld newsTechnologySocial mediaDigital mediaMediaSocial networkingTue, 21 May 2013 06:58:09 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/may/21/privacy-public-health-surveillancePhotograph: Colin AndersonAs surveillance becomes the first and last line in modern governance it puts the state in a conflicted position over privacy. Photograph: Colin AndersonPhotograph: Colin AndersonAs surveillance becomes the first and last line in modern governance it puts the state in a conflicted position over privacy. Photograph: Colin AndersonCory Doctorow2013-05-21T06:58:09ZJust because something has value doesn't mean it has a pricehttps://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jan/08/why-charge-everything-kill-creativity
If every last shred of incidental online value is given a price tag, we'll never harvest the full fruits of our ingenuity<p>When future economists look back on the dawn of the internet era, they will marvel that an age of such technological marvel was attended by a widespread, infantile mania for preventing positive externalities.</p><p>"Externalities" are the economist's catchall term for the spillover effects experienced by the people who are affected by others' activities. Most of the 20th century was spent locked in battle with the corporate vice of externalising negative costs. Companies are beholden to their shareholders, and so they are meant to save every penny they can, even when saving that penny might cost the rest of society several pounds. The classic example is toxic waste: processing industrial waste before it leaves the factory is a costly proposition, and so, whenever it is possible to do so, companies have defaulted to dumping their waste into the wider world. This is a much cheaper option — for the company.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jan/08/why-charge-everything-kill-creativity">Continue reading...</a>InternetTechnologyComputingFacebookGoogleMedia businessMediaTue, 08 Jan 2013 11:01:10 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jan/08/why-charge-everything-kill-creativityPhotograph: Britta Pedersen/EPAGoogle is a case-study in harvesting positive externalities. Photograph: Britta Pedersen/EPAPhotograph: Britta Pedersen/EPAGoogle is a case-study in harvesting positive externalities. Photograph: Britta Pedersen/EPACory Doctorow2013-01-08T11:01:10ZProtecting your Facebook privacy at work isn't just about passwordshttps://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/mar/27/facebook-privacy-passwords
If your employer gets to control the software on your computer it could be snooping on you at all times<p>Facebook has threatened to <a href="http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/facebook-also-creeped-out-by-employers-looking-at-profiles-threatens-to-sue.php" title="">sue companies</a> that force their employees to reveal their Facebook login details. As laudable as this is, I worry that it will fail to accomplish its primary objective – protecting Facebook users from employer snooping.</p><p>Increasingly, firms configure the computers and devices on their internal networks to trust "self-signed certificates". These cryptographic certificates are the same files used by your browser to establish secure, eavesdropping-proof connections to websites and to validate software updates, and to generally validate the identity of remote machines and guard the files they send you from tampering and spying.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/mar/27/facebook-privacy-passwords">Continue reading...</a>ComputingTechnologyData and computer securityFacebookInternetTue, 27 Mar 2012 15:45:28 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/mar/27/facebook-privacy-passwordsPhotograph: Yannis Behrakis/ReutersFacebook users need to be protected from employer snooping. Photograph: Yannis Behrakis/ReutersPhotograph: Yannis Behrakis/ReutersFacebook users need to be protected from employer snooping. Photograph: Yannis Behrakis/ReutersCory Doctorow2012-03-27T15:45:28ZCensorship is inseparable from surveillancehttps://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/mar/02/censorship-inseperable-from-surveillance
We're bad at calculating the long-term costs of keeping our online privacy<p>There was a time when you could censor without spying. When <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/books/2009/jun/04/ulysses-sells-record-price" title="">Britain banned the publication of James Joyce's Ulysses</a> in the 1920s and 1930s, the ban took the form on a prohibition on the sale of copies of the books. Theoretically, this entailed opening some imported parcels, and it certainly imposed a constraint on publishers and booksellers. It was undoubtedly awful. But we've got it worse today.</p><p>Jump forward 80 years. Imagine that you want to ban www.jamesjoycesulysses.com due to a copyright claim from the Joyce estate. Thanks to the Digital Economy Act and the provision it makes for a national British copyright firewall, we're headed for a system where entertainment companies can specify URLs that have "infringing" websites, and a national censorwall will block everyone in the country from visiting those sites.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/mar/02/censorship-inseperable-from-surveillance">Continue reading...</a>TechnologyPrivacyWorld newsPrivacy & the mediaMediaCensorshipInternetFacebookSurveillanceFri, 02 Mar 2012 11:20:27 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/mar/02/censorship-inseperable-from-surveillancePhotograph: Dimitri Messinis/APNowhere to hide: whether you're online or offline, someone is always watching you. Photograph: Dimitri Messinis/APPhotograph: Dimitri Messinis/APNowhere to hide: whether you're online or offline, someone is always watching you. Photograph: Dimitri Messinis/APCory Doctorow2012-03-02T11:20:27ZThe internet is the best place for dissent to starthttps://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2012/jan/03/the-internet-best-dissent-start
Ethan Zuckerman's compelling 'cute cats theory' has changed my mind about the internet's role in the struggle for global justice<p>It's been a year since <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jan/25/net-activism-delusion" title="">I reviewed The Net Delusion</a>, Evgeny Morozov's skeptical take on the internet's role in global justice struggles.</p><p>Central to Morozov's critique was the undeniable fact that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other social media tools are monumentally unsuited to use in hostile revolutionary settings, because while they may get the word out about forthcoming demonstrations and the outrages that provoke them, they also expose their users to retribution from oppressive governments.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2012/jan/03/the-internet-best-dissent-start">Continue reading...</a>InternetTechnologyFacebookSocial mediaMediaTwitterYouTubeTue, 03 Jan 2012 18:12:40 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2012/jan/03/the-internet-best-dissent-startPhotograph: Steve Crisp/REUTERSGraffiti near in Tahrir Square in Cairo: Ethan Zuckerman argues that revolutions are set off by ordinary people using everyday technology. Photograph: Steve Crisp/REUTERSPhotograph: Steve Crisp/REUTERSGraffiti near in Tahrir Square in Cairo: Ethan Zuckerman argues that revolutions are set off by ordinary people using everyday technology. Photograph: Steve Crisp/REUTERSCory Doctorow2012-01-03T18:12:40ZGoogle Plus forces us to discuss identityhttps://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2011/aug/30/google-plus-discuss-identity
Google's Real Name policy embodies a theory that states the way to maximise civility is to abolish anonymity<p>Google Plus's controversial identity policy requires all users to use their "real names". Commentators have pointed to problems with this, including the implausibility of Google being able to determine correctly which names are real and which ones are fake. Other problems include the absurdity of Google's demand for scans of government ID to accomplish this task and the fractal implausibility of Google being able to discern real from fake in all forms of government ID.</p><p>Google argues that people behave better when they use their real names. Google also states it is offering an identity service, not a social network, and therefore needs to know who you are and, thirdly, that no one is forcing you to use Google Plus.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2011/aug/30/google-plus-discuss-identity">Continue reading...</a>Google+TechnologyEric SchmidtGoogleInternetSocial networkingFacebookPrivacy & the mediaMediaDigital mediaTue, 30 Aug 2011 12:12:34 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2011/aug/30/google-plus-discuss-identityPhotograph: Ho/REUTERSGoogle Plus: no stupider moment for Google to subscribe to the gospel of Zuckerberg. Photograph: Ho/ReutersPhotograph: Ho/REUTERSGoogle Plus: no stupider moment for Google to subscribe to the gospel of Zuckerberg. Photograph: Ho/ReutersCory Doctorow2011-08-30T12:12:34ZNetworks are not always revolutionaryhttps://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jun/16/networks-fame-revolutions
Social networking can expose a dictator or publicise a career but successful campaigns need more substance<p>"For most artists," as the famous Tim O'Reilly aphorism has it "the problem isn't piracy, it's obscurity." To me, this is inarguably true and self-evident – the staying power of this nugget has more to do with its admirable brevity and clarity than its novelty.</p><p>And yet, there are many who believe that O'Reilly is mistaken: they point to artists who are well-known, but who still have problems. There are YouTube video-creators who've racked up millions of views; bloggers with millions of readers, visual artists whose work has been appropriated and spread all around the world, such as the photographer <a href="http://www.noamgalai.com/" title="Noam Galai">Noam Galai</a>, whose screaming self-portrait has found its way into everything from stencil graffiti to corporate logos, all without permission or payment. These artists, say the sceptics, have overcome obscurity, and yet they have yet to find a way to convert their fame to income.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jun/16/networks-fame-revolutions">Continue reading...</a>TechnologyFacebookTwitterPiracyThu, 16 Jun 2011 16:32:29 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jun/16/networks-fame-revolutionsPhotograph: Karim Jaafar/AFP/Getty ImagesAl-Jazeera, a 'traditional' TV network whose success is largely a result of their net-savvy business and communications strategy. Photograph: Karim Jaafar/AFP/Getty ImagesPhotograph: Karim Jaafar/AFP/Getty ImagesAl-Jazeera, a 'traditional' TV network whose success is largely a result of their net-savvy business and communications strategy. Photograph: Karim Jaafar/AFP/Getty ImagesCory Doctorow2011-06-16T16:32:29ZWe need a serious critique of net activismhttps://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jan/25/net-activism-delusion
The Net Delusion argues that technology isn't necessarily good for freedom – but how else can the oppressed have a voice?<p>Evgeny Morozov's The Net Delusion is the first book from the Belarusian-born foreign policy writer and blogger. Morozov has built a reputation as a sharp and sometimes caustic critic of the internet and "cyber-utopianism" and Net Delusion expands the arguments he's made elsewhere. I read my review copy with interest; I like Evgeny – the times we've met and corresponded, he's struck me as smart and committed.</p><p>At its core, there is some very smart stuff indeed in The Net Delusion. Morozov is absolutely correct when he forcefully points out that technology isn't necessarily good for freedom – that it can be used as readily to enslave, surveil, and punish as it can to evade, liberate and share.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jan/25/net-activism-delusion">Continue reading...</a>TechnologyInternetFacebookTwitterSocial mediaSocial networkingTue, 25 Jan 2011 14:30:44 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jan/25/net-activism-delusionPhotograph: Joe Raedle/Getty ImagesHugo Chávez protestors were mobilised by Facebook and Twitter campaigns. Photograph: Joe Raedle/Getty ImagesPhotograph: Joe Raedle/Getty ImagesHugo Chávez protestors were mobilised by Facebook and Twitter campaigns. Photograph: Joe Raedle/Getty ImagesCory Doctorow2011-01-25T14:30:44ZReports of blogging's death have been greatly exaggerated | Cory Doctorowhttps://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/jul/13/cory-doctorow-death-of-blogging-exaggerated
Blogging is not on the way out – it's just that other social media have taken over many of its functions<p>A report last month in the Economist <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/16432794?story_id=16432794" title="tells us that " blogging="" is="" dying""="">tells us that "blogging is dying"</a> as more and more bloggers abandon the form for its cousins: the tweet, the Facebook Wall, the Digg.</p><p>Do a search-and-replace on "blog" and you could rewrite the coverage as evidence of the death of television, novels, short stories, poetry, live theatre, musicals, or any of the hundreds of the other media that went from breathless ascendancy to merely another tile in the mosaic.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/jul/13/cory-doctorow-death-of-blogging-exaggerated">Continue reading...</a>TechnologyBloggingInternetSocial mediaTwitterFacebookTue, 13 Jul 2010 10:17:00 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/jul/13/cory-doctorow-death-of-blogging-exaggeratedPhotograph: ROB & SAS/ ROB & SAS/CorbisBlogging is taking a back seat to other forms of social media. Photograph: CorbisPhotograph: ROB & SAS/ ROB & SAS/CorbisBlogging is taking a back seat to other forms of social media. Photograph: CorbisCory Doctorow2010-07-13T10:17:00ZHow to say stupid things about social media | Cory Doctorowhttps://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/jan/05/social-media-cory-doctorow
Criticising social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook is as pointless as knocking people who discuss the weather<p>Here are some suggested things to say if you want to sound like an idiot when you talk about social media:</p><p>• <strong>It's inconsequential – most of the verbiage on Twitter, Facebook and the like is banal blather</strong></p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/jan/05/social-media-cory-doctorow">Continue reading...</a>TechnologyTwitterFacebookMyspaceSocial networkingMediaDigital mediaSocial mediaTue, 05 Jan 2010 13:15:00 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/jan/05/social-media-cory-doctorowPhotograph: Sarah Lee/GuardianA woman checks Twitter on an iPhone Photograph: Sarah LeePhotograph: Sarah Lee/GuardianA woman checks Twitter on an iPhone Photograph: Sarah LeeCory Doctorow2010-01-05T13:15:00Z